Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

[Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

S'ace orange wrote:

> *dear members,*
> *a profound comment of our fellow contributor antonio*
> *calls for a reply or even more a collaborative process with the
> outcome of a definition*
> *for what **"a bottom-up origin" actually is ...*
> **

Bottom-up or top-down is a way to declare a society divided into casts,
where uppers casts rule, while lower casts work and generate the
nation's GDP.
So no matter how bottom-up a decision is made, sooner or later the
top-down hierarchy will chage it to make it work for their own purposes.
We should talk about their purposes then. I'm not an expert but i think
the US constitution is a good enough example to show how the best
intentions can become the worst nightmare in a stratified society. This
latter lacks the mechanism that guarantees equal opportunities: elites
will never leave any room to significant social shifts.
Yet this is partly true: people are in charge of the destiny of the
society and culture they belong to. So anytime is the right time to
change, if this is what is sought. History shows that the right moment
lasts just seconds, alas, swollowed as it is by the self referential
mechanisms of social stratification. No matter if democrats or
republicans, if tories or laburists: top casts MUST be functional to the
system which is essentially exploitation of the workers and huge
benefits for the upper casts. Yes, there may be slight differences in
the treatment of social inequalities but these must remain such, or the
whole society collapses.
So either top-down or bottom-up, we're talking about minimal differences
in the general footprint.
Besides history has shown that top-down decisions have been an excellent
solution at times: see the successful decisions to protect the Japanese
environment by top-down command.

Bottom line: bottom-up guarantees just nothing; there's a plethora of
other factors to consider.

Just my 2c, of course

Giorgio